Citizens Lack Right to Know Source of Political Funds
In a statement filed before the Supreme Court, Attorney General R Venkataramani has defended the electoral bond scheme for political party funding, asserting that it contributes to clean money. He argued that citizens do not have an inherent right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution regarding the source of funds, emphasizing that there can be no general right to know “anything and everything” without reasonable restrictions.
Venkataramani contended that the scheme’s confidentiality benefits the contributors, promotes clean money, and ensures compliance with tax obligations, thus not violating any existing rights. He also emphasized that the power of judicial review doesn’t involve suggesting better policies but only reviewing state actions that impinge on existing rights.
He further highlighted that political party contributions are a matter of democratic significance and subject to political debate and governance accountability. However, he noted that the court should only intervene if there’s a clear constitutional violation, indicating that the absence of a constitutionally offending law doesn’t warrant court interference.
A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is set to hear pleas challenging the validity of the electoral bond scheme from October 31. The scheme was introduced in 2018 to bring transparency to political funding by allowing citizens and entities to purchase electoral bonds. Only eligible political parties can encash these bonds through authorized banks.
This case has been a subject of legal scrutiny, with the government advocating donor anonymity for political funding, while the Election Commission has supported revealing donor names for transparency. The Supreme Court had previously refused to stay the Electoral Bond Scheme in 2019 and 2020, highlighting the weighty issues it raises concerning the electoral process’s sanctity.
